Thoughts on GOP Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
23

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

Giulani No question that he looked sharp in the most recent debate. He’s always fast with an answer and knows his mind on virtually every policy issue. With that said, how many right wingers are going to be able to swallow hard, close their eyes and vote for this guy? I’m betting not enough for him to win if he is the nominee. Even if he picks Huckabee, he’s got an uphill fight in his own party come election day. And personally I think this is Hillary’s top pick. There isn’t going to be a President Giulani not now, not ever. Now if he switches parties…

[/quote]

Mick, I’m interested in the Huckabee for V.P. idea. I’m more impressed with that gentleman the more I hear him.

I agree Rudy will turn to a Social Conservative to shore up his base.

I think McCain is being courted for DoD or Sec of State.

As we’ve discussed, I think hillary is the trump card for social conservatives.

Rudy needs to come up with a line like Reagan’s. To paraphrase Reagan, he said to social conservatives that he knows they can’t support him, but he fully supports them.

This allowed them to support a divorcee.

So far Rudy has said, “You have nothing to fear from me.” Or, “Agreeing with me 80% of the time, doesn’t make me a 20% enemy.”

It’s funny, I think Rudy needs hillary far more than she needs him.

JeffR

24

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

And you think this is a good thing? Since you are for legalizing all hyper-addictive drugs it appears you support this.[/quote]

Oh my, please tell, what are those hyper addictive drugs?

Keep in mind that only one out of three Heroin users gets addicted.

25

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

Giulani No question that he looked sharp in the most recent debate. He’s always fast with an answer and knows his mind on virtually every policy issue. With that said, how many right wingers are going to be able to swallow hard, close their eyes and vote for this guy? I’m betting not enough for him to win if he is the nominee. Even if he picks Huckabee, he’s got an uphill fight in his own party come election day. And personally I think this is Hillary’s top pick. There isn’t going to be a President Giulani not now, not ever. Now if he switches parties…

Mick, I’m interested in the Huckabee for V.P. idea. I’m more impressed with that gentleman the more I hear him.

…
[/quote]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/another_chuck_norris_fact_his.html

Another ‘Chuck Norris fact:’ His pick is Huckabee

26

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

And you think this is a good thing? Since you are for legalizing all hyper-addictive drugs it appears you support this.

Oh my, please tell, what are those hyper addictive drugs?

Keep in mind that only one out of three Heroin users gets addicted.

[/quote]

So let’s legalize it for recreational use!

I can just see the billboards.

Try Heroin! You have a 2 out of 3 chance of not destroying your life!

27

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I suspect it is just as small in the military as it is outside the military.
[/quote]
You’re probably right but I think the vast majority of those supporting Ron Paul are officers which is not a good sign for the other candidates. That speaks volumes to the dissatisfaction in leadership to this country.

28

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

And you think this is a good thing? Since you are for legalizing all hyper-addictive drugs it appears you support this.

Oh my, please tell, what are those hyper addictive drugs?

Keep in mind that only one out of three Heroin users gets addicted.

So let’s legalize it for recreational use!

I can just see the billboards.

Try Heroin! You have a 2 out of 3 chance of not destroying your life![/quote]

Why would they destroy their lifes?

So far they have to hustle because it is expensive and dangerous becaused it is mixed with all kinds of stuff.

Heroin in and of itself damages the body less than alcohol.

29

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Seriously, he’s shrill and he turns off just about anyone who has any sort of grasp on the issues of the day. He’s amusing at this point, and when he drops out I’ll miss him.
[/quote]

What issues? The war? The economy? Are you even from this country? I don’t think you clearly understand what the issues really are if you state this. Not only is he the only candidate that does understand the issues he is the only one that knows what to do to make it right.

His speaking style is still better than our current figurehead and way more genuine than any other candidate on the stage both Democrat and Republican.

30

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

And you think this is a good thing? Since you are for legalizing all hyper-addictive drugs it appears you support this.

Oh my, please tell, what are those hyper addictive drugs?

Keep in mind that only one out of three Heroin users gets addicted.

So let’s legalize it for recreational use!

I can just see the billboards.

Try Heroin! You have a 2 out of 3 chance of not destroying your life!

Why would they destroy their lifes?

So far they have to hustle because it is expensive and dangerous becaused it is mixed with all kinds of stuff.

Heroin in and of itself damages the body less than alcohol.

[/quote]

Drug addiction (even prescription drugs) devastates lives. It destroys relationships, finances, careers, health families etc.

Trying to claim that it only does so because of legality is disingenuous.

31

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

And you think this is a good thing? Since you are for legalizing all hyper-addictive drugs it appears you support this.

Oh my, please tell, what are those hyper addictive drugs?

Keep in mind that only one out of three Heroin users gets addicted.

So let’s legalize it for recreational use!

I can just see the billboards.

Try Heroin! You have a 2 out of 3 chance of not destroying your life!

Why would they destroy their lifes?

So far they have to hustle because it is expensive and dangerous becaused it is mixed with all kinds of stuff.

Heroin in and of itself damages the body less than alcohol.

Drug addiction (even prescription drugs) devastates lives. It destroys relationships, finances, careers, health families etc.

Trying to claim that it only does so because of legality is disingenuous.[/quote]

I am not denying that.

I am only arguing that on top of that organized crime, small crimes to feed drug addictions, impure drugs, jail sentences and drug related diseases are destroying more lives on top of that and even more than the drug addiction in and of itself ever could.

Plus, the whole approach of prohibition causes more problems and costs for society than a mere medical problem ever could.

Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

32

[quote]orion wrote:
…
Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

[/quote]

Alcohol is far less addictive than heroin. Unless you claim 1/3 of people that have tried a drink are alcoholics.

I think heroin pushers are the lowest form of life. They should be removed from society. I think heroin addicts should be treated.

I think we should have laws to lessen the chances of someone getting addicted to evil crap.

I don’t agree with all of our drug laws but throwing them all away and washing our hands of the problem is not the solution.

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

Alcohol is far less addictive than heroin. Unless you claim 1/3 of people that have tried a drink are alcoholics.

I think heroin pushers are the lowest form of life. They should be removed from society. I think heroin addicts should be treated.

I think we should have laws to lessen the chances of someone getting addicted to evil crap.

I don’t agree with all of our drug laws but throwing them all away and washing our hands of the problem is not the solution.[/quote]

Who said you should wash your hands of the problem?

Invest 1% of the WOD drug money in rehabilitation facilities and your golden.

Still socialism, but at least less expensive, coercive and stupid socialism.

34

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

Alcohol is far less addictive than heroin. Unless you claim 1/3 of people that have tried a drink are alcoholics.

I think heroin pushers are the lowest form of life. They should be removed from society. I think heroin addicts should be treated.

I think we should have laws to lessen the chances of someone getting addicted to evil crap.

I don’t agree with all of our drug laws but throwing them all away and washing our hands of the problem is not the solution.

Who said you should wash your hands of the problem?

Invest 1% of the WOD drug money in rehabilitation facilities and your golden.

Still socialism, but at least less expensive, coercive and stupid socialism.

[/quote]

That would be opposed by the likes of Ron Paul. That is the source of my dislike for the guy.

I agree that what we are doing in the war on drugs isn’t exactly the right thing but I beleive our government has a right/obligation to be involved. Ron Paul thinks otherwise.

No drug treatment, no police involvement, no federal money spent at all on the subject.

Fuck the will of the people! it is not in the Constitution so we cannot allow it!

35

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

Alcohol is far less addictive than heroin. Unless you claim 1/3 of people that have tried a drink are alcoholics.

I think heroin pushers are the lowest form of life. They should be removed from society. I think heroin addicts should be treated.

I think we should have laws to lessen the chances of someone getting addicted to evil crap.

I don’t agree with all of our drug laws but throwing them all away and washing our hands of the problem is not the solution.

Who said you should wash your hands of the problem?

Invest 1% of the WOD drug money in rehabilitation facilities and your golden.

Still socialism, but at least less expensive, coercive and stupid socialism.

That would be opposed by the likes of Ron Paul. That is the source of my dislike for the guy.

I agree that what we are doing in the war on drugs isn’t exactly the right thing but I beleive our government has a right/obligation to be involved. Ron Paul thinks otherwise.

No drug treatment, no police involvement, no federal money spent at all on the subject.

Fuck the will of the people! it is not in the Constitution so we cannot allow it![/quote]

I think that if you watch Ron Paul speaking you`ll see that he has his priorities.

Though there are many libertarians that want anarcho capitalism or nothing at all most are willing to compromise to some degree.

Paul also talks about fading out social security instead of just ending it, leaving those that depend on it on the streets.

He is also not against the change of the constitution per se, he is against activist judges and ignoring the constitution.

I think for him drugs are a state issue and I think a lot of US states have drug laws that make much more sense than the federal WOD.

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Are you seriously arguing that alcohol dealers and alcoholics belong into jail?

If not, why heroin dealers and heroin addicts?

Where is the fucking difference?

Alcohol is far less addictive than heroin. Unless you claim 1/3 of people that have tried a drink are alcoholics.

I think heroin pushers are the lowest form of life. They should be removed from society. I think heroin addicts should be treated.

I think we should have laws to lessen the chances of someone getting addicted to evil crap.

I don’t agree with all of our drug laws but throwing them all away and washing our hands of the problem is not the solution.

Who said you should wash your hands of the problem?

Invest 1% of the WOD drug money in rehabilitation facilities and your golden.

Still socialism, but at least less expensive, coercive and stupid socialism.

That would be opposed by the likes of Ron Paul. That is the source of my dislike for the guy.

I agree that what we are doing in the war on drugs isn’t exactly the right thing but I beleive our government has a right/obligation to be involved. Ron Paul thinks otherwise.

No drug treatment, no police involvement, no federal money spent at all on the subject.

Fuck the will of the people! it is not in the Constitution so we cannot allow it![/quote]

That’s why I take a Hamiltonian view sans a Jefferson view. Jefferson says (though he was a hippocrite about it) that if it isn’t in the Constitution you can’t do it. Hamilton says that you can do it unless the Constitution says you can’t. Both men’s intentions have obviously been violated.

This said Zap, isn’t the Constitution more important than junkies? I may well have misread you but it sounds like you are saying that we can’t let the Constitution get in the way of helping these people. You’re a pretty squared away guy so I think I have misread you here.

mike

37

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Paul – he still amazes me in that he can stay on message – even while being booed. Foreign policy is everything in this race. It is the underlying reason for most of our economic problems and a contributing factor to why we are hated. He understands this from a fundamental perspective and he is not given enough credit for it. Really though, Paul is not a candidate whose philosophy can be captured in a 15 second sound-bite. This man is an economic and political scholar who needs to be listened to more seriously.

I’ve been pro-Paul for a few years now, but I’ve got to be wondering which debate you watched. He comes across as a whiny old man. He made almost no sense when he was talking about health care last night. Then he started talking about how we SHOULD take care of the poor and we could do it if it were not for our foreign policy. He babbled his way into saying that it MIGHT be okay to gov’t to run health care if we could afford it. I trust that is because he doesn’t argue well, for that position will lose him for me permanently.

Then he continues to espouse this fallacious idea that our founders were non-interventionist. That is flat out not true. He is starting to sound like a broken record to me. I have been staying with him in spite of his being anti-Iraq, but he’s talking as if anti-war is his platform, not pro-liberty.

What I do want to learn about though is his economic stance. I am somewhat ignorant of what he’s talking about there, though it sounds like he may be onto something.

mike[/quote]

As I wrote in my post, he’s trying to pander to the Republican base, and in so doing, attempting to avoid his libertarian roots. In fact, he won’t even comment on being a libertarian whatsoever. Whenever questioned, he side-steps the issue. He’s clearly putting a lot of effort into coming across as a “real deal” Republican, not just somebody using the party as a vehicle.

On health care, the answer is simple: The free market handles it better. I highly doubt that Ron Paul has forgotten this. But the fact of the matter is, the majority of Republicans have. He’s not going to win any converts by speaking to Republican crowds (often filled with seniors) and telling them how he’s going to abolish Medicare, social security, etc…

If Ron Paul was running as a libertarian, this would be a lot easier.

And, unfortunately, most of you would never have heard his name.

So there it is. Now you see the fix he’s in.

38

[quote]ryanjm wrote:
It’s just that Faux News rigs the debates by asking Paul questions meant to marginalize him from the “major” candidates like “You want the troops home, and so does Hillary Clinton, how are you guys any different?”.[/quote]

Sorry, nothing is rigged. All of the candidates get asked tough questions. Fox hasn’t been lobbing softballs at the top tier contenders, either. I wouldn’t savor the opportunity to take Giuliani, Romney, or McCain’s place on that stage any more than Paul’s.

The questions they ask Ron Paul are precisely the questions that most mainstream Republicans want to see him answer, like it or not. And never forget that neocons form a strong majority of the party, and the country. This is a reality that you should accept and expect your candidate to deal with.

Most people AREN’T familiar with the relatively obscure paleo-conservative/libertarian platform. Neoconservatism IS conservatism as far as most of the voting public is concerned. The USA is a neocon country, when it comes down it! The majority of Americans are not ashamed of their interventionist foreign policy, believe that engaging Hitler was a good idea, as was fighting the Cold War, and so forth… Right around Vietnam is where the mainstream political ideologies start to split into various factions. However, paleocons departed from the mainstream mode long before Vietnam. And therein lies the rub, because nobody is going to give air time to that sort of ancient history on national TV.

Of course, the debate format hampers the effectiveness of his message. But what are you going to do? This also something that should have been known well in advance and planned for accordingly. Libertarians have been trying to break into the mainstream political discourse in this country since the 70’s…Nothing going on today should come as a surprise. Ron Paul has, so far, surpassed EVERY other libertarian in history in the progress he’s made in advancing the platform. Let’s not forget that, at this point in time, he is probably the most widely known “libertarian” in the entire world (even if many know him as a Republican only). In terms of celebrity, he’s sitting next to Ayn Rand and a several rows in front of Murray Rothbard.

39

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Fuck the will of the people! it is not in the Constitution so we cannot allow it![/quote]

Wrong. If it’s the will of the people, they can petition their representatives to amend the Constitution.

You simply follow the rule of law…

40

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…
This said Zap, isn’t the Constitution more important than junkies? I may well have misread you but it sounds like you are saying that we can’t let the Constitution get in the way of helping these people. You’re a pretty squared away guy so I think I have misread you here.

mike[/quote]

Of course it is more important. And I don’t think the Constitution say we cannot help junkies. I don’t think the constitution says the Federal government cannot regulate dangerous drugs.

If we only do what the Constitution specifically allows we will find ourselves in trouble because the document was written before this explosion in technology.

The Constitution allows us to make laws to address these issues. It provides for checks and balances to make sure they are within the spirit of the Constitution. Sometimes those checks and balances don’t work as well as I think they should but that is not reason to throw away everything that is not specifically allowed by the Constitution.